Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I am one of those optimists who believes that because of this Presidential Act, that the JFK records will finally be released; including Oswald's Tax Records.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

They will be released with every line that you would want to read being all blacked out.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Well, you're right.   My point was that nobody else at the time knew that LHO was in the 2nd floor lunchroom. 

However, after the Baker-Truly confrontation of LHO at about 12:32 PM, it is likely that Roy Truly told a lot of TSBD employees, DPD cops, DPD officials, FBI agents, SS agents and so on.

I'm not sure if Truly was jumping around telling everyone he encountered. lol Maybe he was such a 'chatterbox' that is exactly what he did. lol I do think word would have got around though, at least to the extent that some people would have heard the story. (We seem to be in agreement) Whoever actually heard about it or not, I think it's safe to say that it wasn't unknown. ;)  And as Bill mentions earlier, that speaks to Baker and Truly being truthful about the meeting.

Anyroads,

11 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I think Lee was getting paid over and above what the TSBD was giving him or else there would have been no need to not let others see his tax records. A lone nobody would have been an incentive to have made his tax records available .... for me there was more going on than what we were allowed to know.

&

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So -- it seems to me that there would be on LHO's tax forms the fact that LHO was a part-time informant for the FBI in 1962 -- and that would have totally embarrassed the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover. 

The thing about his tax record that I don't quite understand is, if Oswald was being paid as an informant (by whoever) would that have been declared on his tax records? Seems to me that it wouldn't be declared - it would be kept off the records. Perhaps it would have been declared. It does make sense as to why his tax records haven't been released. Whatever the reason, I reckon it was for something that was happening before he started work at the TSBD (for example, what Paul says about being a 'part-time informant for the FBI in 1962'.

Hopefully Oswald's tax records will be released in October this year - (I have a gut feeling that whatever it does show it might not have much to do with the assassination directly, but something indirectly - the reason it was 'locked away' had something to do with what Paul said about being an 'embarrassment' (to someone, somewhere, sometime)... idk)

On the subject of the records being released in October...

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

All the facts about this should come out in October, 2017, when the JFK Records Act releases all concealed records about the JFK assassination.

Alas it doesn't look like ALL concealed records will be released, as this passage from Wikipedia attests:

Quote

All remaining assassination-related records (approximately 5,000 pages) are scheduled to be released by October 2017, with the exception of documents certified for continued postponement by the President under the following conditions: (1) "continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military, defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations" and (2) "the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure."

However, it has to be noted, that the Assassination Records Review Board have read ALL the documents and have stated that the ones that won't be released (under the two above exceptions) don't impact the facts of the JFK assassination.

Quote

There is some concern among researchers that significant records, particularly those of the CIA, may still remain classified after 2017.Although these documents may include interesting historical information, all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

 

Quote

There is some concern among researchers that significant records, particularly those of the CIA, may still remain classified after 2017.Although these documents may include interesting historical information, all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

 

 

That is what Bugliosi said.

So according to what Bugliosi said, the Review Board did not determine that the unreleased documents impact the facts of the Kennedy Assassination.

That's a meaningless statement. Since when do documents affect the facts of something? And even if they could, the Review Board did not determine that they did, according to Bugliosi. I imagine that the Review Board did not determine that they didn't, either.

Can somebody explain this to me? Am I reading it wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Can somebody explain this to me?

Probably not I. lol

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Am I reading it wrong?

Yes and no, but mostly no. ;) It's just when you put it in to your own words you made a slight nuanced big change to it (unintentionally of course)...

The statement in question read: " all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination "

When you restated it as:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...the Review Board did not determine that the unreleased documents impact the facts of the Kennedy Assassination.

The (big) change is you have the Review Board did not determine something, when it is the  Review Board's examination of the records that determined the records did not impact the facts. ;) The Review Board did determine something, they determined that the unreleased documents did not impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination.

Move the 'did not' to before 'impact the fact';

Quote

... the Review Board determined that the unreleased documents did not impact the facts of the Kennedy Assassination.

That is the meaning of the original statement!

if you want, change 'determined' to 'found' to maybe make it easier to spot.

Quote

...the Review Board found that the unreleased documents did not impact the facts of the Kennedy Assassination.

doing the same with the original statement for simplicity:
(NB: 'records' = unreleased documents)

Quote

all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not found to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

Let's try to rephrase that for simplicity without changing the meaning.

Quote

When examined by the Review Board, all of the records were not found to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination.

I really hope that 'clears it up'.

(P.S. Sandy just in case you raise an objection about my changing (for simplicity) the word 'determined' to 'found', keep in mind you changed the word 'impact' to 'affect'. lol Changing words to help with clarification can be a good way to do it - if done correctly, of course. ;) )

Anyway,

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a meaningless statement.

The statement only became 'meaningless' (that is to say, lost it's original meaning) after you (unintentionally) changed the meaning of it. ;)

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since when do documents affect the facts of something?

* although 'affect' and 'impact' are synonyms of each other there could be a nuanced difference.

On the face of it a reasonable question to ask. However it has to be noted that we are talking about as yet unreleased documents and how they may or may not affect/impact on the currently known 'facts'. it's a moot point (until the unreleased documents are released)... but yes unreleased documents could affect the known 'facts' of something, that should be axiomatic.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

... the Review Board did not determine that they did,

The Review Board did determine that the unreleased documents did not impact on the facts of the Kennedy assassination!

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I imagine that the Review Board did not determine that they didn't, either.

The Review Board did determine that the unreleased documents did not impact on the facts of the Kennedy assassination!

(Of course, the Review Board could be wrong with their determination - that is to say, the unreleased documents, when released, may have an impact on the known  'facts' of the Kennedy assassination. We won't find out for sure until they are released. In the meantime all we have to go on is that the Review Board have stated that the unreleased documents do not impact on the facts of the Kennedy assassination).

*Reading between the lines, and trying to speculate as to what the documents released in October will contain; if they don't have an impact on the facts of the Kennedy assassination, thats not to say they have no impact on the case as a whole, it's just that they don't have an impact on the known 'facts' of the Kennedy assassination. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what they contain (as I'm sure you all are too ;) ). I have a gut feeling that it will be the proverbial 'much ado about nothing' and won't actually help 'solve' anything either way... and if that is the case, then it moves the spotlight straight on to the records that are still held back under the two exceptions previously noted. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For informational purposes only this may be of interest:

Quote

By ARRB law (of 1998), all existing assassination-related documents will be made public by October 2017. At the moment, 40,000 documents are still not fully available to the public, among them, 3,000 have never been seen by the public.

In 2013 the ARRB's former chairman John R. Tunheim and former deputy director Thomas Samoluk wrote in the Boston Guide that after the ARRB had declassified 5 million documents, "There is a body of documents that the CIA is still protecting, which should be released. Relying on inaccurate representations made by the CIA in the mid-1990s, the Review Board decided that records related to a deceased CIA agent named George Joannides were not relevant to the assassination. Subsequent work by researchers, using other records that were released by the board, demonstrates that these records should be made public." Tunheim and Samoluk pointed out that the CIA had not told the Warren Commission that George Joannides was the CIA lead for the Agency's links with the anti-Castro group Oswald had a public fight with in mid-1963; nor had they told the HSCA, to which Joannides was the CIA's liaison.Tunheim said in a separate interview that "It really was an example of treachery... If [the CIA] fooled us on that, they may have fooled us on other things."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The (big) change is you have the Review Board did not determine something, when it is the  Review Board's examination of the records that determined the records did not impact the facts.

Thanks for all the explaining, Alistair. The part I quoted above is what got me understanding what Bugliosi meant to say.

It's not true that I changed the meaning of what Bugliosi said. Bugliosi worded it wrong and I merely maintained the meaning of his incorrect statement.

Bugliosi said:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."

It should be:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were determined to not impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."

Although that's a little awkward. I would have worded it this way:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were determined to have no impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."


With that cleared up, the other part becomes clear. (Though Bugliosi messed up the wording on that too,,, I guess he was in a big rush to get the thing written.) Bugliosi thinks he and the Warren Commission have the facts of the JFK assassination, and those are the facts that the Review Board determined the records would have no impact on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The thing about his tax record that I don't quite understand is, if Oswald was being paid as an informant (by whoever) would that have been declared on his tax records? Seems to me that it wouldn't be declared - it would be kept off the records. Perhaps it would have been declared. It does make sense as to why his tax records haven't been released. Whatever the reason, I reckon it was for something that was happening before he started work at the TSBD (for example, what Paul says about being a 'part-time informant for the FBI in 1962'.

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I think I over-explained it of course. lol

The easiest way to explain it would have just to do something like this:

Orginal statement;

Quote

all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

simplified;

Quote

all of the records were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

I agree that it would read better the two ways you have put it... " determined to not impact " or " determined to have no impact"... the last one is probably how I would have worded it too. ;) I would probably have changed determined to found though for simplicity too. ;)

I was a wee bit cautious in my previous respones and deliberatly made no mention of Bugliosi. And the reason I was cautious on that point is because I took the original statement from Wikipedia, there is a chance that it was just whoever wrote it on Wikipedia that had worded it that way - ie: not a direct quote from Bugliosi's book (which was referenced as a footnote.) Just a bit of caution on my part, no biggy though. Even still, Bugliosi is merely stating what the ARRB are going to do...

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bugliosi thinks he and the Warren Commission have the facts of the JFK assassination, and those are the facts that the Review Board determined the records would have no impact on.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, but I think your distaste of Bugliosi and the Warren Commission may be leading you in to over-thinking it a wee bit, or maybe reading too much in to it. Inasmuch as because both of them are in the 'lone assassin, no conspiracy' camp and they have based that conclusion on the 'facts' of the case, that from reading that the ARRB are going to release records that don't impact those facts you are reading it as 'self-fullfilling' to the needs of Bugliosi and the WC.

As you know, from the currently available records, any number of different possibilites as to what happened can be raised. Thus, we can use the same facts that Bugliosi and the WC used to come to their conclusion to construct a case that has a different conclusion. Just because Bugliosi and the WC have used the facts to conclude 'lone assassin/no conspiracy' that doesn't make it true. They could be wrong! But the 'facts' they used to reach their conclusion remain as 'facts' irrespective of their conclusion.

The ARRB are going to release records that (they say) don't impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean it backs up Bugliosi's and the WC's conclusion. If they are wrong then they are wrong. The 'facts' remain the 'facts'.

(NB: The 'facts' are the records themselves, and doesn't mean that what is in any individual record is a fact. Quick example, (one that isn't from the official records but I use it just as an example as it came to my mind), it is a fact that Jean Hill said she saw a white dog in the limo, it is not a fact that there was a dog. - hope that makes sense)

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

lol the 'National Security' excuse always sounds a bit sinister doesn't it - like, what are they trying to hide. lol

Seriously though, I don't know how it works. Could they have released just a part of it, or does it have to be an 'all or nothing', I just don't know. It's not having been released though does imply there is something in there that someone somewhere doesn't want us to know. Fingers crossed it will be released. And if not, the suspicion will remain...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

simplified;

Quote

all of the records were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

 

Alistair,

The phrase is incorrectly worded. It means something different from what Bugliosi meant his sentence to mean.

This is off topic and I'm sure of no interest to others. So I'll explain why I say that in a PM.


 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

Bill,

Here's my opinion:

(1) The reason for 1964 non-disclosure of thousands of documents related to the JFK assassination was stated to be National Security.  I accept that.

(2) In the absence of a fuller explanation, I presume that this referred to the Cold War with the USSR raging hot in 1964.

(3) Of course this would include Cuba's new treaty with the USSR.

(4) There were two explanations offered by CTers in 1964:

(4.1) That the JFK assassination was a Communist plot.   This was restated in fair detail by retired FBI agent James Hosty in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).

(4.2) That the JFK assassination was a Radical Right plot.   This was restated in fair detail by professor Walt Brown in his book, Treachery in Dallas (1995).

(5) I myself am persuaded by the arguments of Walt Brown.   Here is my reasoning:

(5.1) If there had been a Communist plot, there would have been no reason for the USA to hide the fact, and every reason to publicize it in USA propaganda campaigns. 

(5.2) If there had been a Radical Right plot, the reason for the USA to hide the fact would be that the USSR would use the fact in its propaganda campaigns.

(5.3)  A major change in US history occurred when the USSR had collapsed in 1990, and the Cold War ended.

(5.4)  With the end of the Cold War, IMHO, there was less reason to withhold JFK assassination documents.

(5.5) In 1992, US President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act -- moving the date of disclosure from 2039 to 2017.   Evidently President Bush thought the USA could handle it, now that Communism was (probably) dead.

I fully expect to see in October this year, the US Government release documents showing that the Radical Right in Dallas assassinated President JFK and used LHO as a Patsy.

While one might exclaim that the US Government was an "accessory after the fact" (Sylvia Meagher, 1967), the sharp difference is this: the JFK Kill Team set up LHO to be a Communist Patsy.  The JFK Cover-up Team twisted the profile of LHO to be a "Lone Nut."

All these considerations persuade me that the Cold War was the main reason for the US Government holding back the JFK assassination documents, and that the collapse of the USSR was the main reason that President Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992.

To bring this back to the current thread: the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination demonstrates that the Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels TEAM was lying to the Warren Commission, and that all the TSBD workers were telling the truth.  Therefore, Prayer Man is unlikely to be LHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The phrase is incorrectly worded. It means something different from what Bugliosi meant his sentence to mean.

The phrase is not incorrectly worded! Sure it could be worded better, in a more clear way, but it's meaning is very clear and it means exactly what Bugliosi the Wiki editor who wrote it based on Bugliosi's book meant the sentence to mean. and that is 'all of the records were not determined to impact the facts'.

Quote

Although these documents may include interesting historical information, all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

That really couldn't be any clearer.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is off topic and I'm sure of no interest to others. So I'll explain why I say that in a PM.

As a courtesy I have responded to your PM on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

To bring this back to the current thread: the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination demonstrates that the Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels TEAM was lying to the Warren Commission, and that all the TSBD workers were telling the truth.  Therefore, Prayer Man is unlikely to be LHO.

Bloody Prayer Man. lol It's such a stumbling block imo. From reading through all the earlier posts in this thread a good case is made for Prayer Man being Oswald - and yet there are other things pointing away from it (like no one reporting him standing there)...

... is there anything else that can be done to work out Prayer Man?

I can't say I have seen anything identifying all the people on the steps, does such a thing exist? Anyone know?

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The phrase is not incorrectly worded!

I maintain it is. And, as you know, I've asked the members of Quora to judge whether I'm right or not..

Sure it could be worded better, in a more clear way, but it's meaning is very clear and it means exactly what Bugliosi the Wiki editor who wrote it based on Bugliosi's book meant the sentence to mean. and that is 'all of the records were not determined to impact the facts'.

That really couldn't be any clearer.

As a courtesy I have responded to your PM on this subject.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I fully expect to see in October this year, the US Government release documents showing that the Radical Right in Dallas assassinated President JFK and used LHO as a Patsy.

 

 

I fully expect that if anything is released it will be thousands of pages of worthless xxxx that further confuses the key issues.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Edited by Darren Hastings
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...